Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#891

Post by smachiz » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

Grakel wrote: post #880

smachiz wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd amendment also doesn’t guarantee concealed carry handguns, nukes or RPGs. You can have long guns, stored properly in NYC afaik.

The clear intention of the second amendment is that the citizens have the right to have and carry around anything that would be needed to wage war at the highest level, in order to defend themselves from anyone including the government. Just as the founding fathers had very recently finished doing.

I don't think that's the clear intention at all.

If that were so clear, we wouldn't have all of the litigation and laws around the 2A as we do.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#892

Post by smachiz » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

Vecr wrote: post #877

smachiz wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd amendment also doesn’t guarantee concealed carry handguns, nukes or RPGs. You can have long guns, stored properly in NYC afaik.

That's not actually correct, it says "arms", not "some arms". If you take guidance from the "militia" part (possibly dubious, as it's generally interpreted as a preamble), a militia, in a current defensive war, would require anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets and missiles, at the very least. The problem with that is, in Heller, the militia is not really part of the test anymore. You might be able to argue against su…

And yet, you can't buy anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#893

Post by floatingatoll » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

tekkk wrote: post #795

floatingatoll wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve known (without proof) about this occurring in Santa Clara for at least fifteen years thanks to one of my doctors complaining about the corrupt permitting process, so I’m just happy to see that the DA finally doing something about it (with proof). I assume the DA has some political reason that it finally matters to end this, or else they would have ended it ages ago. If you’re curious to learn more about this kin…

Wow. That is outrageous. And it's public knowledge yet nobody has done anything about it? There clearly should be an outside organization which sole purpose should be to investigate police crimes and somehow establish moral code that is adhered to.

The last time people felt that way, the police responded by creating police unions that used contract law to protect police from outside investigations into their abuses.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#894

Post by floatingatoll » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

dntrkv wrote: post #879

floatingatoll wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve known (without proof) about this occurring in Santa Clara for at least fifteen years thanks to one of my doctors complaining about the corrupt permitting process, so I’m just happy to see that the DA finally doing something about it (with proof). I assume the DA has some political reason that it finally matters to end this, or else they would have ended it ages ago. If you’re curious to learn more about this kin…

Alternative explanation: people are buying a $2500 license plate frame and only think it reduces their chances of getting a ticket.

Given the supposed police statements in the article elsethread, it’s more the membership card than the license plate frame these days.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#895

Post by sterlind » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

bonestamp2 wrote: post #887

jcranmer wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three questions: 1) How does not having a plate let you park in the handicapped space? The regulation is probably written such that you are required to have the handicapped plate or placard, and displaying no plate would be probable cause here. 2) Why not just have Apple reserve a parking space for the CEO or Steve Jobs outright? There's no regulations against reserving parking spaces in such a manner that I'm aware…

1) I don't think it lets him park there, but it's hard to write a ticket without a plate number. 2) Agreed. This story makes no sense, although there is a picture of his car in a handicapped spot, so maybe he just did it once? 3) Lots of brilliant and successful people are assholes. Most people admire the first two qualities and not the third.

Unfortunately, people sometimes idolize the assholery because they associate it with being brilliant and successful. You can be kind and visionary!

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#896

Post by mlyle » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

1123581321 wrote: post #207

jonas21 wrote: post #130

Kinda reminds me of that time the Cupertino City Council asked Steve Jobs for free Wifi and iPads in the hearing to approve Apple's new campus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M&t=790 But I guess they all had a good laugh in the end, so it doesn't count?

It’s not illegal to joke about bribery.

I'm not sure why people are treating this like it's bribery.

Free wifi would be something that inures to the benefit of the city / jurisdiction, not primarily to the individual decisionmakers or their department. It may not be something legitimate that they can make planning approval dependent upon, but an elected body trying to negotiate something that sweetens the deal for their electorate is completely legitimate.

Indeed, back before California ended development controls, my city's planning department effectively ran a huge reverse auction, picking the housing developments that would make the biggest street and park improvements in excess of the statutory minimums to authorize for each year's development quota. (A bit more complicated than that: various ways that the development exceeded building code or had additional amenities also counted for points in the "competition").

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#897

Post by telchar » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

neilc wrote: post #884

_23sd wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We pay our taxes" sounds a bit disingenuous from a company that is famous for aggressively offshoring its profits to avoid paying US and California taxes, the latter of which would directly contribute to local housing programs.

Apple's effective worldwide tax rate is ~25%, which is actually slightly higher than other US multinationals. That is also not counting taxes on income/capital gains paid by California employees, which are obviously pretty sizable.

"Apple’s effective U.S. federal income tax rate was just 7.3% in 2011. Apple claimed its tax rate in 2011 was 24.2%, one-third less than the official tax rate of 35%. But the Senate subcommittee found its rate was no more than 20.1%, allowing "Apple to claim credit for $3 billion of deferred taxes on overseas income that are not owed until the profits are brought back to the United States. Since Apple has said that is not likely to happen, its effective tax rate in 2011 was just 7.3% – $2.5 billion in taxes actually paid against $34.2 billion of income before taxes. [Exhibit 1a, pp. 38-39]"[0]

[0] https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issues/corporate-taxes/h...

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#898

Post by ashtonkem » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #868

wongarsu wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wide availability of guns seems to be one of the major underlying reasons for the evil police. Taking them away wouldn't magically fix things, but it would help keep things from regressing after fixing the more direct problems

Show me a gun control law that doesn’t explicitly exempt police.

My favorite is how cops in CA are allowed to buy off-roster guns[0]. Apparently a Glock 19 Gen 5 is just too dangerous for citizens (but a Gen 3 is fine), however cops are allowed to own them personally because ... reasons.

0 - CA has a roster of handguns legal for private purchase and ownership. The list includes every gun that was for sale when the roster was created, plus any gun that meets CA's microstamping law. The second list is exactly 0 guns long; both because it's not clear if it's technically possible, and because gun companies have no interest in playing along. The result is that there are all kinds of arbitrary restrictions on guns based on the date, not anything even vaguely related to public safety. Oh, and guns eventually fall off the roster after a certain grace period, so eventually there will be no handguns legally for sale in CA barring a change to the law or a court case.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#899

Post by joshstrange » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

sgt wrote: post #800

rkt88edmo wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NO - these aren't workplace permits, they are personal licenses for the employees. They can already carry guns on their building grounds without a permit. The company is stepping in on behalf of their employees for to get these permits issued to them as individuals, so Apple's willingness to participate in the bribery is on the company. I do agree that the police have done the far greater crime in the abuse of their…

Why do Apple guards need to carry guns in the first place? Those guards should just be monitoring and alerting real law enforcement if a break-in happens. If someone goes postal, then I guess there should be several normal folks at Apple already carrying and able to protect the general public.

> If someone goes postal, then I guess there should be several normal folks at Apple already carrying and able to protect the general public.

So your solution is other, probably lesser-trained, individual Apple employees should be concealed-carrying so they can respond to a workplace shooting? Let's ignore that Apple probably doesn't allow this in the first place but even if they did I would not want to work in an environment where my coworkers were walking around with guns all the time. I have no problem with guns or CCW but in the workplace is a different story for me.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#900

Post by QuercusMax » Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

bonestamp2 wrote: post #887

jcranmer wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three questions: 1) How does not having a plate let you park in the handicapped space? The regulation is probably written such that you are required to have the handicapped plate or placard, and displaying no plate would be probable cause here. 2) Why not just have Apple reserve a parking space for the CEO or Steve Jobs outright? There's no regulations against reserving parking spaces in such a manner that I'm aware…

1) I don't think it lets him park there, but it's hard to write a ticket without a plate number. 2) Agreed. This story makes no sense, although there is a picture of his car in a handicapped spot, so maybe he just did it once? 3) Lots of brilliant and successful people are assholes. Most people admire the first two qualities and not the third.

I thought the handicapped spot story and the every-six-months-new-car-for-no-plates story were separate. Steve didn't want a license plate on his car because he thought it messed up the aesthetics. He was also a jerk and parked in the handicapped spot because he could.